What’s going on?
A case about whether or not state laws can require pro-life clinics to advertise abortion options on their walls is making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Give me the important details:
NIFLA v. Becerra, which will be considered by the court this term, pits the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates against the state of California.
State law requires crisis pregnancy centers to feature prominent materials about low-cost or free abortions for women who qualify along with a phone number to connect them with abortion clinics.
Professionals working to help women with crisis pregnancies are being forced to advertise abortion options, but the requirement doesn’t go the other way. Abortion clinics aren’t ordered to put prominent notices on their walls to direct clients to pro-life pregnancy centers.
How will this case affect my life?
Free speech is a fundamental right. If the Supreme Court decides that a state can dictate a private organization’s speech, the case could dangerously undermine the First Amendment and set a precedent for more infringement on free speech.
Free speech is on trial again, and “the stakes couldn’t be higher,” Glenn said on today’s show.
“Imagine all of the other insane positions that the government could force us to start endorsing” if the Supreme Court rules against NIFLA, Glenn pointed out. As an analogy, he compared California’s forced speech for pro-life clinics to churches being forced to have advertisements for atheism.
This article was originally published on GlennBeck.com.